originally posted by: chr0naut
It is water, salt and movement at an experimental scale, demonstrating the physics of scenario (the ice cream is physically separate separate from the
salt water), I would say it's a valid. Beyond that, we do have observable examples to see how things scale.

Are you, perhaps, suggesting that to understand large scale events we need to multiply the smaller experimental results by the increase in scale?

By that method, if we are getting -8 degrees in a jug volume (approximating a litre) we must be getting temperatures of
-1,335,000,544,699,999,999,718.85 degrees below absolute zero by multiplication (of course, at absolute zero there is no further thermal energy
to extract, so the water temperature would have to stop getting colder at -273.15 degrees C). The upshot is that by this (faulty) method, the water
could not be warmer than absolute zero.

Also, since agitated salt water is partially solid at about -8 degrees C, how is movement maintained down to such low temperatures as -55 degrees
C?

LOL! It's not just about size, it's the motion of the ocean! In all seriousness, in order for your experiment to qualify, it would have to have the
same movements as the oceans, and the same chemical composition along with similar conditions to the earth at the time, along with a big bright light
shining on it in a rotating pattern and factoring in the moon's gravity, weather and natural disasters. -55 represents the AVERAGE temperature on
earth. There would obviously be colder areas and warmer areas, as well as seasons. I'm sorry but your ice cream doesn't come close to representing
that. The comparison is beyond bunk. Please let it go.

Yes I know snow ball earth is a hypothesis, but the OP was arguing that a 5 degree difference in temperature would cause the oceans to freeze, which
is why I mentioned what scientists have to say about the temperature needed for that to happen. He brought up snowball earth, not me. My point was
that a 5 degree difference in average global temperature is not nearly low enough for that to happen.

The problem with a Snowball Earth is that the frozen oceans would reflect away thermal energy and the Earth would cool even more. Once a
Snowball Earth has occurred, there is no way to break back out of the situation and for the Earth to melt again.

Again, I already stated that this depends on the atmosphere as well. A thick atmosphere can still absorb more heat, even if the oceans are frozen.
I'd say an increase in volcanic activity or a comet impact could cause something like this and make the planet start warming again. I'm sure there
are other ways as well.

We do observe salty oceans. We don't observe the conclusions we draw from the evidence.

Stop it. Observing salt oceans doesn't prove anything the op or you said about oceans freezing with a 5 degree temperature difference. To act like
this counts as observations related to that or to intelligent design is even more absurd.

I'm not getting into the red herrings about interpreting evidence. It's BS and shows you don't get the scientific method. If it's not testable it's
not evidence. End of story. You start with the conclusion that god exists and cherry pick selective things to support it, but offer no objective
test to see if it actually works. Scientists start with the evidence and follow where it leads and see what additional questions it asks. Those 2
schools of thought are not even close to being equally valid. The evidence of evolution shows genetic changes and natural selection as prime
directors of species changing over time. It can't also be interpreted as creation unless you ignore half the evidence.

LOGICAL DISPROOF OF CREATIONISM- Infinite regress paradox. Like the chicken and the egg, only asks the question, "What created the creator, and if
that is infinite, why can't a quantum vacuum (and potential) be as well?"

Anything that requires a starting point is epistimologically invalid, and the alpha of the superfluous.

i propose that belief in god appears to be a deficit of a sense of the numinous

numinous meaning "denoting or relating to a numen", it describes the power or presence or realisation of a divinity.

It would appear that your definition contradicts itself.

, or an inability to reason about abstracts

Surely the supernatural is abstracted from the natural. This is a contradiction, if applied to support a naturalistic (non abstract) viewpoint, as it
is in this definition.

- a high functioning autism which is able to extrapolate anything which is not blindingly obvious, to the point where they insist that it must
exist.

This last section is the only bit that has a little validity as argument, except that atheism is also not blindingly obvious and therefore included in
this definition.

The case I supplied was specific, whereas the inverse you supplied is the opposite and, therefore, inclusive of all but the specific.

I would call pareidolia a deficit of sense, even in relation to divine phenomena. Divinity is in the mind of the observer. This results from an
inability or inadequacy when reasoning with abstract concepts. I was kidding about the autism bit, but if it can apply to atheists or agnostics then
it should apply doubly to those who display such mental hiccups as I just described.

i propose that belief in god appears to be a deficit of a sense of the numinous

numinous meaning "denoting or relating to a numen", it describes the power or presence or realisation of a divinity.

It would appear that your definition contradicts itself.

, or an inability to reason about abstracts

Surely the supernatural is abstracted from the natural. This is a contradiction, if applied to support a naturalistic (non abstract) viewpoint, as it
is in this definition.

- a high functioning autism which is able to extrapolate anything which is not blindingly obvious, to the point where they insist that it must
exist.

This last section is the only bit that has a little validity as argument, except that atheism is also not blindingly obvious and therefore included in
this definition.

The case I supplied was specific, whereas the inverse you supplied is the opposite and, therefore, inclusive of all but the specific.

I would call pareidolia a deficit of sense, even in relation to divine phenomena. Divinity is in the mind of the observer. This results from an
inability or inadequacy when reasoning with abstract concepts. I was kidding about the autism bit, but if it can apply to atheists or agnostics then
it should apply doubly to those who display such mental hiccups as I just described.

But surely paredoilia is due to pattern recognition.

If we had no pattern recognition, we could not read nor would we recognise many other visual clues. Surely the inability to recognise patterns is the
deficit. Since it is likely that you have such pattern recognition abilities, you must also suffer from the "deficit" of paredoila.

< - - - see this funny little guy, it isn't a face (we understand what it represents by paredoilia - no one taught us "this is a symbol for a
face with its tongue sticking out").

Scientists and mathematicians are very good at reasoning with abstract concepts.

There are others, who may parrot those scientists and mathematicians (in an effort to appear to be 'in' the intelligentsia), who are not as good at
abstracts or reasoning.

Yet, ask yourself, if science had no evidence either for or against the existence of the supernatural (a statement I disagree with), wouldn't it be
irrational to arrive at a conclusion, and call it scientific, if science itself has no conclusion about it?

You see it isn't an issue about what science says, science is mute on the subject.

Some individuals may believe that science has invalidated the supernatural, but this is based upon their opinion. It is those individuals, on an
individual by individual basis, that are not being rational - or scientific.

Yet, ask yourself, if science had no evidence either for or against the existence of the supernatural (a statement I disagree with), wouldn't it be
irrational to arrive at a conclusion, and call it scientific, if science itself has no conclusion about it?

You see it isn't an issue about what science says, science is mute on the subject.

Some individuals may believe that science has invalidated the supernatural, but this is based upon their opinion. It is those individuals, on an
individual by individual basis, that are not being rational - or scientific.

Hi chr0naut, always enjoy reading your posts.

For the record, I am not one who harbors religious beliefs of any kind, (even though I was raised Catholic), but consider myself to be agnostic on the
idea of a supernatural entity that started it all. My issue is with being able to quantify this supposed entity into an empirical scientific
observation. As far as I know it hasn't been done, nor do most scientists, I would think, consider the search for a supernatural being to be within
the purview of the scientific method. To me, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the possibility that one exists, just that the search for one is not
on scientists' to do list. And even if it was, how would they begin the search for a god, or how would they know one is there, or when they've found
evidence for it - physically speaking, what is the signature of god? To be quite honest, it's far too abstract of a concept for me, and I'm not able
to imagine what form or function such an entity would take if we are to use our 5 senses to quantify it in some way.

Hence this OP, asserts that the composition of the ocean is actual proof of god's existence. I can't get myself to see it.

You said you disagree with the idea that there isn't any scientific evidence either for or against a god, so I'd wonder what scientific evidence have
you come across that lends credence to the existence (or not) of an omnipotent being?

I get that we can look at the world around us and notice and give meaning to the patterns we see. I also get that there can be a tendency for making
an a priori argument for the existence of a god. But not sure how that computes.

With that said, I can't agree with an argument (which I've seen in these discussions before) that suggests "the non-physical can't give way to the
physical", since we are direct evidence against this being true. For instance we can turn an idea, which is a non-physical thing, into an actual
physical thing. Spirituality has been shown to have very positive effects on our well being, etc etc...

yes this is what makes people wonder what if . A what if can not be proven as it does not exist in the real world .
But with so many things being so close to ( it must be this way in nature it sure makes a guy stop for a mint .
Thing is religion requires Faith because it can prove nothing . In other words this is the way it is and you cant question it .
Now if a GOD made this law then what is he hiding . Questions can bring answer and he does not want us knowing the answers .
If it was just men then its oves the man does not want you to question it because he maybe just ahve to work for a living when you realize he is just
collecting money .
ever notice just how much gold the churches have ? it isnt because the pope got a job lol.
In teh end we are not much different then the Greek 2000 years agio they realized the gods were full of it and decided they just didnt need them any
more .
Looks like The Christian God is suffering the same fate .
Remindes me of a old star trek show when the enterprise found a plant that Apollo him self went to when man over through the gods .
And the star trek movie were spocks half brother went and found God ) sortive lol

i propose that belief in god appears to be a deficit of a sense of the numinous

numinous meaning "denoting or relating to a numen", it describes the power or presence or realisation of a divinity.

It would appear that your definition contradicts itself.

, or an inability to reason about abstracts

Surely the supernatural is abstracted from the natural. This is a contradiction, if applied to support a naturalistic (non abstract) viewpoint, as it
is in this definition.

- a high functioning autism which is able to extrapolate anything which is not blindingly obvious, to the point where they insist that it must
exist.

This last section is the only bit that has a little validity as argument, except that atheism is also not blindingly obvious and therefore included in
this definition.

The case I supplied was specific, whereas the inverse you supplied is the opposite and, therefore, inclusive of all but the specific.

I would call pareidolia a deficit of sense, even in relation to divine phenomena. Divinity is in the mind of the observer. This results from an
inability or inadequacy when reasoning with abstract concepts. I was kidding about the autism bit, but if it can apply to atheists or agnostics then
it should apply doubly to those who display such mental hiccups as I just described.

But surely paredoilia is due to pattern recognition.

If we had no pattern recognition, we could not read nor would we recognise many other visual clues. Surely the inability to recognise patterns is the
deficit. Since it is likely that you have such pattern recognition abilities, you must also suffer from the "deficit" of paredoila.

< - - - see this funny little guy, it isn't a face (we understand what it represents by paredoilia - no one taught us "this is a symbol for a
face with its tongue sticking out").

Scientists and mathematicians are very good at reasoning with abstract concepts.

There are others, who may parrot those scientists and mathematicians (in an effort to appear to be 'in' the intelligentsia), who are not as good at
abstracts or reasoning.

Yet, ask yourself, if science had no evidence either for or against the existence of the supernatural (a statement I disagree with), wouldn't it be
irrational to arrive at a conclusion, and call it scientific, if science itself has no conclusion about it?

You see it isn't an issue about what science says, science is mute on the subject.

Some individuals may believe that science has invalidated the supernatural, but this is based upon their opinion. It is those individuals, on an
individual by individual basis, that are not being rational - or scientific.

Your argument is a good case for agnosticism which is a more diplomatic version of atheism. Think of it like "no comment" being more polite than "I
don't have time for this crap so buzz off". Lack of validation and inability to be validated is the start of a semantic argument that threatens to be
as unsatisfying as it is arduous. The long and short is, no supernatural influence has ever been measured and recorded in reliable settings according
to the standards of scientific inquiry so split as many hairs as you like, it remains a moot point. On a personal note I am intrigued by apatheism
which doesnt attempt to prove or disprove anything but rather dismisses theology as irrelevant. It's worth looking up.

originally posted by: midnightstar
yes this is what makes people wonder what if . A what if can not be proven as it does not exist in the real world .
But with so many things being so close to ( it must be this way in nature it sure makes a guy stop for a mint .
Thing is religion requires Faith because it can prove nothing . In other words this is the way it is and you cant question it .
Now if a GOD made this law then what is he hiding . Questions can bring answer and he does not want us knowing the answers .
If it was just men then its oves the man does not want you to question it because he maybe just ahve to work for a living when you realize he is just
collecting money .
ever notice just how much gold the churches have ? it isnt because the pope got a job lol.
In teh end we are not much different then the Greek 2000 years agio they realized the gods were full of it and decided they just didnt need them any
more .
Looks like The Christian God is suffering the same fate .
Remindes me of a old star trek show when the enterprise found a plant that Apollo him self went to when man over through the gods .
And the star trek movie were spocks half brother went and found God ) sortive lol

For the record, I am not one who harbors religious beliefs of any kind, (even though I was raised Catholic), but consider myself to be agnostic on the
idea of a supernatural entity that started it all. My issue is with being able to quantify this supposed entity into an empirical scientific
observation. As far as I know it hasn't been done, nor do most scientists, I would think, consider the search for a supernatural being to be within
the purview of the scientific method. To me, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the possibility that one exists, just that the search for one is not
on scientists' to do list. And even if it was, how would they begin the search for a god, or how would they know one is there, or when they've found
evidence for it - physically speaking, what is the signature of god? To be quite honest, it's far too abstract of a concept for me, and I'm not able
to imagine what form or function such an entity would take if we are to use our 5 senses to quantify it in some way.

Hence this OP, asserts that the composition of the ocean is actual proof of god's existence. I can't get myself to see it.

Yeah, of itself, you could argue that it is chance and that we wouldn't be here to observe it, if things were any different.

The thing is, there is a lot of these superfine values around us, tipping points for physics, chemistry and even biology. At some point you have to
ask yourself if the 'chance' argument is still valid since the probability of the actual is so low. Even more so as we come to understand that there
are effects and rules driving against chance (such as what we believe to be universal entropy and that the most abundant reactions are always those
with the lowest energy state, which should reduce variety to a single preferred state).

You said you disagree with the idea that there isn't any scientific evidence either for or against a god, so I'd wonder what scientific
evidence have you come across that lends credence to the existence (or not) of an omnipotent being?

This is part of my definition, that what constitutes evidence, is different from the inferences we may draw from that evidence.

The 'existence of the supernatural' is not an object. We are never going to see one. So any evidence of its existence must be inferred.

It wasn't long ago that dark matter and dark energy were outrageous concepts. Even now, we can only infer their existence from other evidences.

But I am sure that there is substantial evidence of the supernatural. Most of the evidence is unacknowledged. Some of the evidence is misinterpreted.
A little of of the evidence is discarded because it is deemed 'subjective'. Some of it is explained away with alternate interpretations which while
ever they sound plausible, will remain untested.

I get that we can look at the world around us and notice and give meaning to the patterns we see. I also get that there can be a tendency for
making an a priori argument for the existence of a god. But not sure how that computes.

With that said, I can't agree with an argument (which I've seen in these discussions before) that suggests "the non-physical can't give way to the
physical", since we are direct evidence against this being true. For instance we can turn an idea, which is a non-physical thing, into an actual
physical thing. Spirituality has been shown to have very positive effects on our well being, etc etc...

God is wave function. Claiming photons create EM effect is Satanism. Because the wave was here first. Photons arent real, and matter is not
fundamental to creation, it is creation in various states of restriction from a little to alot (order, in the words of a satanist).

The wave function had no beginning, and has no end. It is so big, that all other waves are created from its harmonics (angels). A giant spiraling
wave, a permanent magnetic field emanating from no where. Immeasurable because its the baseline we've tared out of the scale.

This isnt a theory. Religion was coded science theory. Spiritual science was only a slice of it. Prayer works, when you know what your praying to.

Your argument is a good case for agnosticism which is a more diplomatic version of atheism. Think of it like "no comment" being more polite than "I
don't have time for this crap so buzz off".

Yes, but the difference between agnosticism and atheism is more than politeness. Agnosticism is an honest evaluation of the situation, for those who
have no subjective experience or objective evidence that might 'tip the balance' one way or another.

Lack of validation and inability to be validated is the start of a semantic argument that threatens to be as unsatisfying as it is arduous. The
long and short is, no supernatural influence has ever been measured and recorded in reliable settings according to the standards of scientific inquiry
so split as many hairs as you like, it remains a moot point. On a personal note I am intrigued by apatheism which doesnt attempt to prove or disprove
anything but rather dismisses theology as irrelevant. It's worth looking up.

Oh, "on a personal note", wouldn't that be subjective and entirely irrelevant from a staunchly scientific standpoint?

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
This isnt a theory. Religion was coded science theory. Spiritual science was only a slice of it. Prayer works, when you know what your praying to.

Wrong. Prayer only works when the person you are praying for KNOWS that you are praying for them. It's pure placebo, spirit science is 100% bunk and
isn't science. There is nothing in religion that references science. You assume it. You are right, that isn't a theory. There isn't enough
evidence, which is why. It's not even a hypothesis. Wave function is very highly misunderstood. It's a FUNCTION of waves, not a being, not anything
to do with spirituality.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, but the difference between agnosticism and atheism is more than politeness. Agnosticism is an honest evaluation of the situation, for those who
have no subjective experience or objective evidence that might 'tip the balance' one way or another.

Just wanted to point out that rejection of something with no supporting evidence is honest and logical. Agnosticism can be logical, however it
postulates that the answer cannot be known, while I believe it can be, just not with our present technology and understanding of the universe.
Agnostics are technically atheists. They admit they don't know, but for the most part disbelieve until they see evidence.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, but the difference between agnosticism and atheism is more than politeness. Agnosticism is an honest evaluation of the situation, for those who
have no subjective experience or objective evidence that might 'tip the balance' one way or another.

Just wanted to point out that rejection of something with no supporting evidence is honest and logical. Agnosticism can be logical, however it
postulates that the answer cannot be known, while I believe it can be, just not with our present technology and understanding of the universe.
Agnostics are technically atheists. They admit they don't know, but for the most part disbelieve until they see evidence.

A denial of something, about which you have no knowledge, either for or against, is neither reasonable, nor honest.

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
This isnt a theory. Religion was coded science theory. Spiritual science was only a slice of it. Prayer works, when you know what your praying to.

Wrong. Prayer only works when the person you are praying for KNOWS that you are praying for them. It's pure placebo, spirit science is 100% bunk and
isn't science.

I have seen prayer work without the person being aware that they are being prayed for; situations where something physical and measurable but
completely inexplicable has occurred.

Generally, when praying for people, most would include the person who is the object of the prayer but this is NOT always the case.

One example of prayer with no 'object person' informed is that my first house was threatened by fire from an adjacent house and the water main
pressure was insufficient to hose down the house. There was smoke or steam arising from our walls and the paintwork was beginning to blister and we
were helpless to do anything. My wife, kids & I knelt down in our yard and prayed that we wouldn't loose the house and rain immediately began, not to
just fall, but to deluge down, putting out the fire next door (the next door's roof had collapsed and so the water was funnelled in to the fire) and
preventing the spread of the fire to ours. As soon as the deluge stopped, which it did as suddenly as it started, the fire engine arrived and the
firemen were all looking up into the sky, which was cloudless and starry, saying "where did that come from?".

There is nothing in religion that references science. You assume it. You are right, that isn't a theory. There isn't enough evidence, which
is why. It's not even a hypothesis.

Of course religion references science. One might say that nothing in bricklaying references science. The comment is just irrational hyperbole and
doesn't convince anyone with the ability to reason.

Wave function is very highly misunderstood. It's a FUNCTION of waves, not a being, not anything to do with spirituality.

There I totally agree with you, Barcs. A wave function implies a regular and repeatable variation in something. It is usually very basic and simple in
science and mathematics. To ascribe deity to a wobble is, I think, the penultimate irrationality (the ultimate being high levels of order having
arisen from randomness).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.